This turned ABC's -- is legal analyst and neighbors and an end to him you would've thought that the -- was on trial yesterday. Absolutely you've got both the prosecution. And the defense saying in essence that she's line. The defense is using this a fair to say this is the motive. This is a man who wanted to kill his romantic rival. And you've got the defense saying this relationship sort of led did he mean to this spiral of madness. And yet you here for saying in court. There was no relationship but don't -- -- -- -- -- suggesting that she was part of the plot. Well now would these other witnesses saying that she's not telling the truth about when she found out. About the shooting. -- that he's really puzzling. And it sure makes you wonder. How much the investigators looked at her they must they must -- questioned her they must have investigated that potential angle. And obviously they didn't come up with a that there is -- -- huge burden on the defense right now they got to prove they've got to prove. That their client was crazy that threatened when you're talking about insanity they have to prove -- the burden of proof ships generally the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. But when a defendant claims insanity. You have both sides agreeing in essence on the underlying facts yes he's the person who shot. Who shot -- Now the question is what was going on in his head and when when you when you pursue the insanity defense the defendant now past the burden. To prove that he didn't understand right from wrong. And that completely changes. How the trial works and the strategies involved. And that's again why it's not that surprising. To see prosecution and defense agreeing on some underlying facts. The real issue in this case is his mental state very high -- Dan Abrams thanks very much.

This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.